On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Nicholas Vetrovec nickvet...@yahoo.comwrote:
Posted on the US Page to help coordinate US Interstate relations.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_Relations
Since interstate highways are usually two separate one-way ways, which way
(or
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:54:12 -0500
Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Nicholas Vetrovec
nickvet...@yahoo.comwrote:
Posted on the US Page to help coordinate US Interstate relations.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_Relations
On 4/11/09 11:38 PM, Nicholas Vetrovec wrote:
Posted on the US Page to help coordinate US Interstate relations.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_Relations
We'll need this kind of coordination for U.S. routes as well.
--
Minh Nguyenm...@zoomtown.com
AIM: trycom2000;
Minh Nguyen wrote:
On 4/11/09 11:38 PM, Nicholas Vetrovec wrote:
Posted on the US Page to help coordinate US Interstate relations.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_Relations
We'll need this kind of coordination for U.S. routes as well.
Probably wouldn't hurt for the
Joseph Jon Booker wrote:
Also, wouldn't it make sense to have the way a route is displayed as
the name? For example, network=I,ref=90 would have name=I 90, and
network=US:IL, ref=58 would have name=IL 58 in the relations.
Not really, no. Many Interstate routes have official names that have
Minh Nguyen wrote:
On 4/11/09 11:38 PM, Nicholas Vetrovec wrote:
Posted on the US Page to help coordinate US Interstate relations.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_Relations
We'll need this kind of coordination for U.S. routes as well.
Another thing I just
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 04:39 -0500, Joseph Jon Booker wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:54:12 -0500
Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Nicholas Vetrovec
nickvet...@yahoo.comwrote:
Posted on the US Page to help coordinate US Interstate relations.
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 2:38 AM, Nicholas Vetrovec nickvet...@yahoo.com wrote:
Posted on the US Page to help coordinate US Interstate relations.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_Relations
Instead of state_id=xx, I would suggest we glom onto addr:state=xx as
the recent
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 10:26 -0400, Adam Schreiber wrote:
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Blog entry with more details here.
http://weait.com/content/badges-badges
The highway badges you've added look great. Are you working on
pushing your changes
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 9:31 AM, Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 04:39 -0500, Joseph Jon Booker wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 01:54:12 -0500
Ian Dees ian.d...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 1:38 AM, Nicholas Vetrovec
nickvet...@yahoo.comwrote:
this is nice, will add what I have done already.
some comments for discussion.
did you change the recommendation for a reason compared to the one here?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging
not that this is perfect but it has more information.
both definitions should be
On 12 Apr 2009, at 2:39 , Joseph Jon Booker wrote:
US routes can also become two separate one-ways when becoming
express ways or trunk ways, while being a regular two-way street the
rest of the way, so it probably doesn't make sense to have separate
directions. Perhaps a proposal can be made
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
network=us_i_2 # Interstate (2 digit) us_i_3 for 3 digit
network=us_us_2 # US Route us_us_3 for 3 digit
network=us_ny # NY State Route
network=us_ny_county #
That looks great to me, except that us_i_2 vs us_i_3 seems
this is great work, signs could be a bit smaller tough.
why not stick with the symbol tag? see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging
the symbols tagging should be transparent to the mappers not only to
some internal notation of a renderer.
and tags should be human
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 11:53 AM, Apollinaris Schoell
ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
this is great work, signs could be a bit smaller tough.
why not stick with the symbol tag? see
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging
the symbols tagging should be transparent to the
On 12 Apr 2009, at 9:01 , Adam Schreiber wrote:
Probably because the mapper can easily identify the type of road (i.e.
Interstate, US Hwy, etc.). I'm not sure that the mapper should be
specifying the URL of the sign since it requires extra work to find it
and any renderer should be able to
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 10:38 -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
network=us_i_2 # Interstate (2 digit) us_i_3 for 3 digit
network=us_us_2 # US Route us_us_3 for 3 digit
network=us_ny # NY State Route
network=us_ny_county #
That looks great to me, except that us_i_2 vs us_i_3 seems like tagging
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 04:45:23 -0700
Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
Joseph Jon Booker wrote:
Also, wouldn't it make sense to have the way a route is displayed as
the name? For example, network=I,ref=90 would have name=I 90, and
network=US:IL, ref=58 would have name=IL 58 in the
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 08:31:14 -0400
Greg Troxel g...@ir.bbn.com wrote:
I don't understand what the auxiliary list is about. Interstates
are interstates even if they are only in one state. E.g. I-190 in
Massachusetts.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_41#Alternate_routes . I've never
seen
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 13:23 -0500, Joseph Jon Booker wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 08:39:45 -0700
Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
2 relations are easier. adding role to thousands of members is a
pain. and we need to split relations with API 0.6 anyway
So how do we handle the
On 12 Apr 2009, at 11:58 , Richard Weait wrote:
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 13:23 -0500, Joseph Jon Booker wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 08:39:45 -0700
Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
2 relations are easier. adding role to thousands of members is a
pain. and we need to split relations
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 12:30:48 -0700
Apollinaris Schoell ascho...@gmail.com wrote:
On 12 Apr 2009, at 11:14 , Joseph Jon Booker wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 09:31:22 -0400
Richard Weait rich...@weait.com wrote:
Perhaps direction=North|South|West|East, or cardinal=North|South|
West|
On 4/12/09 11:23 AM, Joseph Jon Booker wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 08:39:45 -0700
Apollinaris Schoellascho...@gmail.com wrote:
2 relations are easier. adding role to thousands of members is a
pain. and we need to split relations with API 0.6 anyway
So how do we handle the case
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 02:21:05 -0700
Minh Nguyen m...@1ec5.org wrote:
On 4/11/09 11:38 PM, Nicholas Vetrovec wrote:
Posted on the US Page to help coordinate US Interstate relations.
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/Interstate_Highways_Relations
We'll need this kind of coordination for
Joseph Jon Booker wrote:
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 04:45:23 -0700
Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
Joseph Jon Booker wrote:
Also, wouldn't it make sense to have the way a route is displayed as
the name? For example, network=I,ref=90 would have name=I 90, and
network=US:IL, ref=58 would
Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
On 12 Apr 2009, at 9:01 , Adam Schreiber wrote:
Probably because the mapper can easily identify the type of road (i.e.
Interstate, US Hwy, etc.). I'm not sure that the mapper should be
specifying the URL of the sign since it requires extra work to find it
and any
Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
this is nice, will add what I have done already.
some comments for discussion.
did you change the recommendation for a reason compared to the one here?
http://wiki.openstreetmap.org/wiki/United_States_roads_tagging
not that this is perfect but it has more
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 20:26 -0400, Greg Troxel wrote:
Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org writes:
Why make this more complicated than it has to be? Leave the names on
the underlying way, not the relations; leave the refs on the relations,
not the underlying ways. Then it's a matter of
On Sun, 12 Apr 2009 16:39:50 -0700
Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
Why make this more complicated than it has to be? Leave the names on
the underlying way, not the relations; leave the refs on the
relations, not the underlying ways. Then it's a matter of fixing
mapnik and t...@h to
On Sun, 2009-04-12 at 16:55 -0700, Paul Johnson wrote:
Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
It contains all you need to pick the correct sign. But you need the
whole knowledge about signs for all states, county ...
as an example California uses different signs for US routes but the
same for
On Sun, Apr 12, 2009 at 19:00, Paul Johnson ba...@ursamundi.org wrote:
Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
- with API 0.6 the size of relations is limited to 1000 members. many
interstates have more segments. relations have to be split into
smaller pieces and a super relation.
Ouch! Who failed
On 12 Apr 2009, at 17:00 , Paul Johnson wrote:
Apollinaris Schoell wrote:
this is nice, will add what I have done already.
some comments for discussion.
did you change the recommendation for a reason compared to the one
here?
32 matches
Mail list logo
